Need a simple phrase...

å±

We shouldn't let "long ago, and far away" overule good local evidence.

BSA, post: 428109, member: 1122 wrote: I need a simple phrase to discount the idea of using a distant object to "control" boundary location.

Wrong (except when it's right)

Holy Cow, post: 428146, member: 50 wrote: 64 words a simple phrase do not make.

Fixed it.
"The problem inherent in using some bearing and distance calculated from a remote point from the records of early surveys to re-establish some corner is that experience shows it invariably to be less reliable than a method that relies upon evidence nearer to the corner in question that would tend to show the locations in which lines were actually run and corners actually marked."

You can't get here from there.

Bottom of the totem pole

Tom Adams, post: 428195, member: 7285 wrote: Fixed it.
"The problem inherent in using some bearing and distance calculated from a remote point from the records of early surveys to re-establish some corner is that experience shows it invariably to be less reliable than a method that relies upon evidence nearer to the corner in question that would tend to show the locations in which lines were actually run and corners actually marked."

Emasculated:
"Establishing boundaries from a distant object is invariably less reliable than relying upon evidence at the property that tends to disclose locations of the subject property lines where corners were originally set."

Let me get this straight... we measure using instruments that are 1200 miles in space but we are worried about a couple of measly miles here on Earth?

Here is how Justice Shaw stated the general principle in 1908:
"Experience shows that such measurements, made at different times by different persons with different instruments, will usually vary somewhat. The position of the object or monument at which the course begins may also be changed and the change may not be known to the parties, or there may be no means of ascertaining its original position."

He goes on:
"If the position of the line always remained to be ascertained by measurement alone, the result would be that it would not be a fixed boundary, but would be subject to change with every new measurement. Such uncertainty and instability in the title to land would be intolerable."

That is pretty much the best summary of the general policy of boundary determination I have seen.

Wendell, post: 428210, member: 1 wrote:
Let me get this straight... we measure using instruments that are 1200 miles in space but we are worried about a couple of measly miles here on Earth?

Um, 12,550 miles.

My first question would be, what is the purpose of your note? Who is the audience? Why would it be expected that you'd use anything other than local monuments to control the boundary?

roger_LS, post: 428245, member: 11550 wrote: My first question would be, what is the purpose of your note? Who is the audience? Why would it be expected that you'd use anything other than local monuments to control the boundary?

What is your second question?
{smart ass mode off}

Brad Ott, post: 428247, member: 197 wrote: What is your second question?
{smart ass mode off}

Ha! You didn't answer the first one! Second general question would be, why a note at all? Wouldn't it just add uncertainty and confusion to the record?

Just say no.

Mike Marks, post: 428221, member: 1108 wrote: Um, 12,550 miles.

Whoops, typo